EXEMPLARY FORESTRY IN THE ACADIAN FOREST · 2019-12-31 · Exemplary Forestry for the 21st Century...

EXEMPLARY FORESTRY INTHE ACADIAN FOREST

32 Foster Street | P.O. Box 1346 | Littleton, MA 01460T 978.952.6856 | newenglandforestry.org

Exemplary Forestry for the 21st Century: Managing the Acadian Forest for Bird’s Feet and

Board Feet at a Landscape Scale

Prepared by R. Alec Giffen and Robert Perschel

For New England Forestry Foundation

April 9, 2019

Exemplary Forestry for the 21st Century 040919 Page: 2

I. Introduction / Context / Overview

The New England Forestry Foundation (NEFF) has for 75 years worked to conserve New England’s forests and to promote the highest standards of forest sustainability. In this paper we take a step further and define the characteristics and outcomes of the forestry we strive to practice. We believe these practices will help our forests make their strongest possible contributions to New England’s regional economy, wildlife, and climate mitigation and resilience. We call this approach to forestry “Exemplary Forestry.” NEFF aspires to practice forestry in line with the proposals herein, and is open and welcoming to helping other forest owners who wish to adopt practices and standards that can influence the overall societal contributions of New England’s forests.

The specifics of what constitutes Exemplary Forestry will vary by forest region. The Acadian Forest of northern New England serves as our laboratory to develop this approach, both because of the depth of experience of the lead authors in that region and because it is home to the greatest degree of commercial forest harvesting in the northeastern U.S. Because our goals include increasing forest productivity and ensuring that forest products are used in long-lived applications that displace less sustainable materials (e.g. steel and concrete), it follows that influencing the wood basket of commercial forestry is vitally important. NEFF has already conserved more than a million acres of this region. It has signed on to acquire approximately 3,000 acres along the Denny’s River, an important river in Downeast Maine for the survival of Atlantic Salmon, and aims to own and manage additional large parcels in the Acadian Forest. We intend to hold ourselves to the standards laid out herein as we expand our ownership in the Acadian Forest region. A one-page summary of the substance of these standards can be found in Section VI of this paper. The rest of this paper provides the scientific grounding that supports our expectations that this approach will provide the wildlife habitats and climate mitigation—as well as timber production—called for in the 21st century.

Fundamentally, NEFF is looking to maintain or enhance the public values that its forests provide, while also supplying materials (wood in its many forms) that are environmentally preferable to non-wood alternatives from several perspectives, including climate change. Realizing financial returns is also important as achieving reliable financial returns ensures NEFF is able to practice good forestry in the long term. Demonstrating financial viability will also support its efforts to reach other landowners, as well as educate the public about the benefits of long-term forest management for multiple purposes.

NEFF’s Exemplary Forestry standards are intended to build on and supplement the good programs already in place to advance beneficial forest practices such as third-party forest management certification. Our objective is to concisely define the concept of Exemplary Forestry with a few of the most powerful metrics indicative of good stewardship in a commercial forestry setting. Beyond protecting the forest environment and the many “ecosystem” services it provides, Exemplary Forestry is targeted to:

1) Enhance wildlife habitat for the full range of species present;

2) Increase the quality and quantity of both the wood produced and retained in forest stands over time; and

3) Enhance the role forests can play to mitigate climate change—this involves increasing resilience, facilitating adaptation to future climate conditions, and managing forests to sequester more carbon in the forest and in forest products—and to use the other influences of forests on climate change in positive ways as well.

The intent of this paper is to distill the essence of Exemplary Forestry from the thousands of studies and dozens of guidelines written on what constitutes responsible and productive forestry. This paper shows


scientific support for the approaches Exemplary Forestry takes and the results we expect to achieve, presented in a way that is as easy to understand as possible—hopefully even for non-foresters.

NEFF’s Exemplary Forestry starts from a landscape perspective. To achieve ecological and particularly wildlife habitat goals, the management of any lands must be viewed in the context of the landscape where they occur; therefore, Exemplary Forestry starts from this broad perspective. We view these goals in the context of at least a township in settled portions of New England and several townships in areas of big woods. When forestry is practiced on smaller parcels, such as most of the approximately 150 community forests NEFF owns, we do not expect those parcels to be able to incorporate the full set of specifications identified for Exemplary Forestry on a single parcel (e.g., small parcels cannot include wildlife habitats that must be at least a square mile in area). Instead, NEFF’s forestry on individual parcels will consider how these lands can maximize their contribution to the landscapes where they occur and help provide as close to the full suite of forest values as possible, by filling in elements missing in the landscape. Sometimes it may require multiple management actions and many years to provide those missing elements, particularly when starting with a parcel with depleted forest stocking or other deficits.

To be clear, these standards are for actively managed forest lands, but NEFF is nevertheless mindful of the important role played by ecological reserves, which a number of other organizations are pursuing. NEFF supports strategically expanding the existing regional system of ecological reserves to meet other habitat needs not met on managed forest lands. As part of this system, NEFF can contribute forested parcels it already owns that are designated “forever wild” and not subject to active management.

As alluded to earlier, the specifics of what constitutes Exemplary Forestry will of course vary from one forest region to another. However, across all forest types in New England, Exemplary Forestry aims to manage for landscape scale objectives, including improving the quality of the forest, enhancing wildlife habitat, and mitigating climate change over time by:

1) Growing the tree species best suited to each site;

2) Maintaining or restoring stocking that fully occupies sites;

3) Growing and harvesting more of the wood our forests are capable of providing;

4) Achieving a diverse stand size class distribution from seedlings to large diameter trees in multi-storied stands;

5) Creating stand conditions that are well suited to the great majority of native wildlife species;

6) Employing best management practices to protect soils, riparian habitats and aquatic habitats, as well as aesthetics;

7) Protecting special habitats including wildlife trees (e.g., snags and trees for cavity nesting species), habitats of species identified as having special needs not entirely met by the management outlined above, and habitats which are critically important to more common species such as deer wintering areas; and

8) Employing a mix of management styles to simultaneously achieve the three goals outlined earlier.


II. Improving Wildlife Habitat and Protecting Biodiversity

NEFF’s definition of Exemplary Forestry incorporates elements from two dominant schools of thought regarding the best silvicultural practice to both grow wood for harvest and provide habitat for wildlife.

One school of thought holds that forest harvesting should mimic historic natural disturbance patterns. For example, in the Acadian Forest such disturbances are largely the death of single mature trees or small groups of trees (two or three at a time affecting approximately 1% of the landscape in any given year) with long periods between stand-replacing events like large scale fires or massive windthrow events (in some cases 1,000 years plus) (Lorimer and White 2003, Seymour, et al. 2002).

This disturbance pattern leads to a management approach known as uneven-aged management and it favors some but not all species of wildlife (e.g., American marten, forest interior species and species that thrive in small patch openings—see Pounch and Giffen [2018] for more on this topic). Such forests can have “late-successional” (LS) characteristics and have other benefits (e.g., storing more carbon) beyond providing superior habitat for certain wildlife1 (see also Ten Broeck 2018). They can provide habitat for some species of plants which require these conditions (Whitman and Hagan 2009). They can also serve as a reservoir of genetic diversity when compared to stands where only what are seen as “superior” trees are retained (see Kenefic 2018 for more on this topic). Similarly, but more broadly, they provide benchmarks for how more intensive management affects forest ecosystems. In addition, they can serve as a source of inspiration. Despite these several benefits, other species that require larger forest openings—bigger blocks of early successional habitat for nesting, feeding or raising their young—do not thrive in LS and old-growth (OG) forests. These latter species may have only been present in pre-settlement forests at very low numbers or may have been entirely absent but now make up a large portion of the region’s wildlife.

Another school of thought is that harvesting should provide habitat for robust populations of all the species that use the Acadian Forest region today. Adherents to this perspective argue that in addition to meeting the needs of forest interior species by providing a forest with only small gaps in the canopy, larger openings (15 acres or more) are needed to maximize habitat benefits for species like Canada Lynx, Chestnut-sided Warbler, Eastern Kingbird, Meadow Voles, Snowshoe Hare, Ruffed Grouse and even post-fledgling chicks of some species of birds that breed in more mature forests. These patches are called “even aged” because the trees all regenerated at one time. Figure 1 below shows the number of species2 favored by these different styles of management.

1 Ecological reserves should be strategically located to maximize their benefit, e.g., maintain a particular habitat or provide connectivity, etc. The report on Wildlands and Woodlands calls for them to occupy 10% of the forested landscape. 2 The number of species is only one measure of the importance of habitat to wildlife—diversity, or the combination of number of species and relative abundance is often used in addition to species richness, and tree age class becomes important for different species as well.


Figure 1. Potential number of wildlife species by silvicultural system and cover type group

Source: DeGraaf, et al. 2006

Studies show that the number of species using forest openings (even-aged patches) in spruce-fir forests increases dramatically as the size of the opening approaches 20 acres and then climbs slowly up to perhaps 50 acres.

Figure 2. Avian richness across patch sizes

• Adapted from work by Rudnicky and Hunter (1993) in regenerating spruce-fir patches.

• The relationship of avian species richness to increasing regeneration patch size is strongest in this dataset up to 50 acres.

• King, et al. (2001) found similarly high nest survival rates for bird species using both clearcuts and group cuts in heavily forested landscapes.

• Costello, et al. (2000) detected 8 bird species that used clearcuts (�̅� = 20 ac) but not smaller group selection cuts (�̅� = 0.5 ac).

• Bird species that use larger forest gaps may be habitat-limited in locales solely practicing single-tree and small group selection management.

A number of species use different forest successional stages. Of Maine’s vertebrate species, 71% benefit from management for species like marten (more “mature” and unbroken forests), and 48% are benefited by early successional habitats like those for lynx, though there is obviously considerable overlap (McCollough 2007). Thus, the proposed standards for Exemplary Forestry honors both points of view by calling for significant portions of the landscape to be managed under even- and uneven-age management regimes.

NO MGT = no management (largely intact forest with small gaps)

UAM = uneven-aged management (largely intact forest with small gaps)

EAM = even-aged management (forest managed in patches of a single size)


It can be argued that the graphics included herein are weighted toward larger forms of “wildlife” and that if all species down to the very small (e.g., fungi, bacteria and insects) were included, the results could be shifted with more species tallied as benefitting from uneven-aged management, but regardless of the division of species numbers between the two forms of management, the point remains that different species need different habitats or need them at different times in their lives.

III. Growing More and Better-Quality Wood

As stated earlier, the second goal of Exemplary Forestry is to increase the quality and quantity of wood produced. This goal is important from both ecological and economic perspectives.

From an economic perspective, harvesting wood provides a financial return that enables NEFF to fund its programs to advance good forestry and provide other landowners with a reliable, modest return on investment and a reason to keep forests as forests. An analysis of data from several sources conducted as part of the work on Exemplary Forestry shows that on average, actively managed lands in the Acadian Forest yield a net return of $5-10/acre a year after expenses, with significantly more possible over time with improved management (Giffen 2018).

Of course, timber supplies are also important to rural economies. For example, the Maine Forest Products Council (2016) reports that the forest products industry in Maine is responsible for generating $8.5 billion in economic activity and 33,538 jobs.

Figure 3. Maine’s forest economy


Source: Maine’s Forest Products Council (2016).


Thus, increasing wood production is important to:

• Keeping forests as forests;

• Rural economies; and

• Financial returns to landowners.

As described later, growing and harvesting more wood is also important to reduce climate change, as wood can substitute for more energy-intensive building materials. See Section III for more on this topic.

But, can we grow more wood and simultaneously improve the environment? The answer is yes. A study conducted for NEFF as part of its work on its Path to Sustainability report concluded that the harvest of wood in New England could be doubled with more intensive management. Figure 4 compares current levels of harvests in New England forests (0.29 cords/acre/year) with what has been shown to be possible (over 1 cord/acre/year) with more intensive management.

Figure 4. Wood production

As context for considering this issue, a recent study of forest harvesting in New England and New York concluded that “37% of all harvests in Maine” were “harvest types fitting the characteristics of exploitive harvests” (Belair and Ducey 2018). These practices can reduce growth rates.

In contrast, as shown in Figure 5 below, more intensive management that increases stocking levels can increase growth and sustainable levels of harvest. Average stocking in Maine is now approximately 17 cords/acre, but could be increased, thereby growing more wood. As noted earlier this also can have ecological benefits. As also noted in the figure, the Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands has approximately 22 cords per acre of stocking and hence higher growth rates.


Figure 5

An analysis of how the growth of timber under Exemplary Forestry management compares to management oriented to maximize short term cash flows shows that while Exemplary Forestry will not result in the highest return in the short term (discounted cash flows are lower), patient management can, over time, increase timber stocking, timber value, harvest volumes (particularly of higher value products) and annual returns. Figures 6 and 7 show how these two forms of management compare, in the first case for a forest representative of average conditions in the area of the Mountains of the Dawn (a portion of the Acadian Forest in the mountains of western Maine), and in the second case, for a pole-sized spruce/fir stand with good stocking. Analyses comparing Exemplary Forestry management with management to maximize cash flows start with the same initial condition. Silvicultural prescriptions for Exemplary Forestry were developed in consultation with the region’s preeminent silviculturalists. These were applied to over 46 stand condition classes (a combination of forest type, stand size class, and level of stocking) present in the Acadian Forest. The model Forest Vegetation Simulator was then used to analyze how the growth and harvest of timber compared with management to maximize short term cash flows (harvesting when a sufficient volume of trees per acre reach a merchantable size).

This analysis indicates that Exemplary Forestry management produces stands with higher residual volumes particularly in the sawtimber classes and more higher-value sawtimber is harvested than pulp. What this means is Exemplary Forestry can, over time, produce higher-value stands with greater annual returns while they also retain the ecological values and carbon sequestration benefits related to older and more fully stocked stands.

2017 Average for Maine


Figure 6. The results of management to maximize short-term cash flows versus Exemplary Forestry for a forest of average condition

Maximum Cash Flow Projections

Exemplary Forestry Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Initial Year 1 Year 1 Year 10 Year 10 Year 20 Year 20 Year 30 Year 30 Year 40 Year 40 Year 50 Year 50 Year 60 Year 60

Cord

s pe

r Acr

e

Stocking and Decadal Yield for a Forest Representative of Current Conditions

Harv Pulp MaxCF

Harv Saw MaxCF

Resid Pulp MaxCF

Resid Saw MaxCFStanding timber

Harvest

Initial Year 1 Year 10 Year 20 Year 30 Year 40 Year 50 Year 60 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Initial Year 1 Year 10 Year 20 Year 30 Year 40 Year 50 Year 60

Cord

s pe

r Acr

e

Gross growth (Stocking and Decadal Yield Combined) for a Forest Representative of Current Conditions

Harv Pulp MaxCF

Harv Saw MaxCF

Resid Pulp MaxCF

Resid Saw MaxCF

Initial Sawtimber

Initial Pulpwood

Residual Sawtimber

Residual Pulpwood

Harvested Sawtimber

Harvested Pulpwood

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Cord

s pe

r Acr

e

Stocking and Decadal Yield for a Forest Representative of Current Conditions

Harv Pulp EF

Harv Saw EF

Resid Pulp EF

Resid Saw EF


Standing timber

Harvest

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Cord

s pe

r Acr

eGross growth (Stocking and Decadal Yield Combined) for a

Forest Representative of Current Conditions

Harv Pulp EF

Harv Saw EF

Resid Pulp EF

Resid Saw EF

Initial Sawtimber

Initial Pulpwood

Residual Sawtimber

Residual Pulpwood

Harvested Sawtimber

Harvested Pulpwood


Figure 7. The results of management to maximize short-term cash flows versus Exemplary Forestry for a poletimber-size spruce/fir stand with good stocking

Maximum Cash Flow Projections

Exemplary Forestry Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Cord

s pe

r Acr

e

Stocking and Decadal Yield for a Well-stocked Spruce-Fir Forest of Pulpwood Size

Harv Pulp MaxCF

Harv Saw MaxCF

Resid Pulp MaxCF

Resid Saw MaxCF

Standing timber

Harvest


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Cord

s pe

r Acr

e

Gross growth (Stocking and Decadal Yield Combined) for a Well-stocked Spruce-Fir Forest of Pulpwood Size

Harv Pulp MaxCF

Harv Saw MaxCF

Resid Pulp MaxCF

Resid Saw MaxCF

Initial Sawtimber

Initial Pulpwood

Residual Sawtimber

Residual Pulpwood

Harvested Sawtimber

Harvested Pulpwood

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Cord

s pe

r Acr

e

Stocking and Decadal Yield for a Well-stocked Spruce-Fir Forest of Pulpwood Size

Harv Pulp EF

Harv Saw EF

Resid Pulp EF

Resid Saw EF

Standing timber

Harvest


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Cord

s pe

r Acr

eGross growth (Stocking and Decadal Yield Combined) for a Well-

stocked Spruce-Fir Forest of Pulpwood Size

Harv Pulp EF

Harv Saw EF

Resid Pulp EF

Resid Saw EF

Initial Sawtimber

Initial Pulpwood

Residual Sawtimber

Residual Pulpwood

Harvested Sawtimber

Harvested Pulpwood


The conclusions from this analysis of the growth and yield expectations under Exemplary Forestry are corroborated by the empirical evidence from the long-term management of woodlots like NEFF’s Wicopy Woods (Figure 8) and with the results from the Demeritt Forest at the University of Maine.

Figure 8. Wicopy Woods Tree Farm


Figure 8 (cont.)


Figure 8 (cont.)

Source: Adapted from Seymour and Leahy (2016).


From a financial perspective, the empirical data also suggests that, over the long term, net annual returns could be doubled by better management. This is not to say that financial returns considered as normally calculated (net present value using discount rates for future returns) will be better for Exemplary Forestry, as it is virtually always better in financial terms to liquidate anything of value when it gets to merchantable size. Sixty years of experiments at the Penobscot Experimental Forest demonstrate this dispositively.

Figure 9. Results of 50 years on the Penobscot Experimental Forest

Note: The financial returns from diameter limit cutting calculated in conventional terms are almost twice as good from those of careful management.

However, as shown earlier, it is also true a patient forest landowner practicing good silviculture can increase periodic “nominal” (undiscounted) cash flows over the long term and, with prudent management, perpetuate them indefinitely.

To illustrate this point, reflect on what was shown earlier in Figure 6. Starting with the same initial condition (average stocking and species mix for the area in question), after 50 years the comparison of Exemplary Forestry management and management to maximize short-term cash flows is shown below in terms of residual stocking (trees still growing) and harvesting during that decade.

The results of 50 years of selection management on the Penobscot

Experimental Forest

This stand was managed selectively with light harvests every 20 years. The financial return from this management (measured as the net present value of all income and costs) is approximately $534. (Photo: John Brissette, Northeastern Research Station)

This stand was managed using a diameter limit (all trees above a given diameter were harvested). The financial return from this management was $976 (net present value). (Photo: John Brissette, Northeastern Research Station)

The results of 50 years of diameter limit cutting on the Penobscot Experimental Forest


Figure 10.

Which outcome is better for the landowner, society and rural economies, wildlife, and the environment? How many more wood products could be produced to offset carbon-intensive products like steel and concrete, thus mitigating climate change? We think the answer is self-evident. The Swedes figured this out in the beginning of the 20th century and restored their forests. Now their landowners make several times what New England landowners make per acre, and their forest products economy is thriving. They face challenges with biodiversity, but they are working on it (Giffen 2018).

IV. Mitigating Climate Change

From an ecological perspective, using wood rather than other materials can help achieve the third goal of Exemplary Forestry: using forest management approaches that make our forests more resilient and better adapted to climate change, while concurrently mitigating climate change. Exemplary Forestry leads to older, more diverse forests with a mix of age classes, which is likely to make them more resilient3 to, as well as facilitate adaptation4 to, climate change. However, it is through its potential impact on climate mitigation5 that Exemplary Forestry offers its most important contribution, which has yet to be fully acknowledged.

As was agreed by all the nations of the world in the Paris Accords, it is critically important that we keep global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius. However, it is predicted we will surpass that level in a few decades unless we take immediate action to reduce carbon emissions. Because a great deal of carbon is stored in the world’s forests, and more could reside there if forests are allowed to grow, they have become a focal point for thinking about how to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. There is currently a great deal of attention in the scientific and policy arenas paid to in-forest carbon stocks. While this attention is important, the full effect of forests and forest management on climate requires a more holistic approach. We need to account for the carbon emissions that are offset when we use wood products instead of other carbon intensive products such as steel, concrete and plastic. These are called

3 Resilience is the ability to withstand the stresses brought about by climate change. 4 Adaptation is the ability to change over time in response to climate change. 5 The ability to reduce climate change.

Note the differences in harvest volumes, particularly the volume of sawtimber being harvested

Note the trees left growing

Maximum short term cash flows

Exemplary Forestry

n Harvest – pulp n Harvest – sawlogs n Pulpwood left growing n Sawtimber left growing


“equilibrium economic effects”—that is, understanding how affecting one segment of the economy affects others and creates a new balance or equilibrium.

In contrast to some other forest influences on climate (e.g., how biogenic volatile organic compounds influence the formation and life of clouds), we understand how changes in forest carbon stocking and the production of forest products can help mitigate climate change as regards carbon. Our goal with management is to keep as much carbon in the forest as possible while producing wood products that maximize substitution benefits. This will maximize climate mitigation. Simply put, it requires far more energy to produce materials other than wood. For example, it takes approximately 10 times as much energy to produce a steel stud for construction as a wooden stud. So, the more wood we can direct to replacing carbon-intensive building alternatives, the greater the effect on climate mitigation.

Figure 11. Relative energy consumption

Source: Committee on Renewable Resources for Industrial Materials (1976).

Matthews, et al. (2014) analyzed how using wood in the United Kingdom when compared to the most reasonable alternatives reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The authors concluded that increasing the use of wood could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions when considered over timeframes as short as 20 years (wood should have even greater benefits when considered over longer timeframes as the forests regrow).


Figure 12. Relative greenhouse gas emissions over 20 years comparing use of wood to use of non-wood substitutes (based on UK conifer forests with a history of sustained yield management).

Source: Simplified by R. A. Giffen, but based on Figure 5.12 and Table 5.2 from Matthews (2014).

From a global perspective, Oliver, et al. (2014) analyzed how much the increased use of wood could decrease global CO2 emissions. They concluded that global emissions could be reduced by 14-31% by substituting wood in construction for other materials (primarily steel and concrete).

Figure 13. Carbon consequences over time when forest regrowth and wood use are considered

Figure adapted by R. A. Giffen from Oliver (2014) with permission of the author.

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

Decrease in CO2 in 20 years resulting from additional sequestration if harvesting ceases

Relative emissions based on multiple scenarios of using wood for sawn wood in combination with mixes of other products.

Relative emissions if wood used for fuel only

Rela

tive

emis

sion

s (tC

O2-

eq h

a-1yr

-1)

REDU

CTIO

NS

IN G

HG L

EVEL

S

(Zero line provided for reference)

Sawn wood and most GHG beneficial mix of other products (factors include life of wood product, energy to create product and recycled content of products such as particleboard. )

1

Incr

easin

g se

ques

trat

ion

and

redu

ced

emis

sion

s


And because forests regrow after sustainable harvesting, the use of wood from New England forests to replace steel and concrete is not a once-and-done proposition. Forests can be used sustainably to “pump” CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it in wood products for centuries.

Figure 14. Sustainable forestry carbon cycle

Source: Washington Forest Protection Association (n.d.)

Thus, the use of Exemplary Forestry practices to increase the use of wood and regrowth of forests could provide a low-risk approach to “geoengineering” to reduce excess CO2 levels. We are working at many levels to present this opportunity to climate scientists and policy makers. We welcome other landowners to join us in practicing the forestry approaches that help mitigate climate change while producing valuable wood products and creating important wildlife habitat. For more on this topic, please see NEFF’s website, particularly the section on Build It With Wood at newenglandforestry.org/learn/initiatives/build-it-with-wood; and the reports entitled “Grow As Much As We Use,” “Grow More Wood,” and “Protect Us From Climate Change” at newenglandforestry.org/connect/publications/path-to-sustainability.

In addition, there are a host of other ways that forests influence climate that we must understand and account for, if we are to take full advantage of the opportunities forests offer. These include forest effects on cloud formation or the reflectivity of different forest cover types (Figure 15). Forest management affects both the carbon stored in the forest, the availability of forest products to substitute for other materials, and the full range of forest effects on climate. Ultimately, Exemplary Forestry must address all the ways that forest management affects climate. Future research will improve our understanding of these non-carbon effects on climate, and thereby allow us to calculate how Exemplary Forestry can contribute to supporting a stable climate.

https://newenglandforestry.org/learn/initiatives/build-it-with-wood/

https://newenglandforestry.org/connect/publications/path-to-sustainability/


Figure 15

Source: New England Forestry Foundation.

V. Adaptation and Mitigation of Climate Change Adaptation to and mitigation of climate change is another important aspect of Exemplary Forestry.

Adaptation involves increasing “resistance” and “resilience” of forests to climate change and facilitating their “transition” to forest types better suited to future climate conditions.

Mitigation of climate change is reducing the future level of warming, including but not limited to reducing greenhouse gas levels.

Forests can and should be managed to both adapt to and mitigate climate change.

Regarding adaptation, resistance to climate change is as the name implies, the ability of the forest to remain unchanged in the face of climate chance. A variety of forest management techniques can be applied to increase resistance (e.g., favoring tree species most able to “resist” adverse effects of climate change such as increased damage from ice storms). These and other techniques for adapting forests to climate change are explained in (Swanston and Janowiak 2016) and in Section VIII below.

Resilience is the ability of the forest to rebound from adverse effects of climate change—for example, to recover from the damage from ice storms. Again, techniques for increasing resilience are explained in Section VIII below.

“Transitioning” forests involves activities like changing species composition to those which are better suited to future climates.

A single forest management activity can serve more than one adaptation purpose and indeed mitigation purposes as well.

Mitigation typically involves activities like increasing the carbon stored in forests. However, on the carbon side of the ledge, it can also include increasing growth and harvest rates to increase the carbon stored in wood products. New thinking regarding the carbon consequences of forest management includes recognition of the fact that substituting wood for other construction materials can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As explained earlier, these other materials can require far more energy to produce than wood.


Other measures to mitigate climate change can involve changing the reflectance (albedo) of forests, changing rates of evapotranspiration and potentially the production of Biogenic Volatile Organic Compounds—which can influence the formation of near ground (tropospheric ozone—a greenhouse gas) and the formation of secondary aerosols which can reflect incoming solar radiation and contribute to the formation of clouds (both cool the earth).

Both adapting to and mitigating climate change are important to the future of forests and our climate.

See Janowiak, et al. (2018) on documenting the impacts of climate change in the region.

VI. Continuous Improvement

Finally, NEFF does not expect its definition of Exemplary Forestry to remain static. Rather, we expect the definition to be refined and improved as our knowledge increases.

NEFF has chosen to call this forest management approach Exemplary Forestry because the name connotes that the concept is aspirational; these goals we are reaching for are intended to be mutable and we fully expect they will change as scientific knowledge increases and our understanding of how to apply forest management improves. NEFF is working to add new parcels to our ownership, and these additions may affect the metrics for the overall condition of our forests (e.g., average stocking) before we bring them up to Exemplary Forestry standards. And, nature is unpredictable—any landowner’s properties may be affected by wind, pests or drought. In essence, our Exemplary Forestry standards and metrics are what we aspire to achieve. If outside factors affect our efforts, we will re-commit ourselves to our approach and the achievement of our metrics over time. We invite others to join us in the effort to practice Exemplary Forestry.


VII. Thanks to Those Who Helped

While assuming full responsibility for the content of this document, NEFF thanks the following for their thoughtful contributions:

• Bill Leak, Research Forester, US Forest Service, Northern Research Station – for his expertise on northern hardwood silviculture to improve long-term productivity.

• Mariko Yamasaki, Research Wildlife Biologist, US Forest Service, Northern Research Station – for her expertise in meeting habitat/biodiversity objectives.

• Sally Stockwell, Conservation Director, Maine Audubon – for her wildlife management expertise, particularly as regards avian species.

• Rob Bryan, Consulting Forester – for his wildlife management expertise, particularly as regards avian species.

• Gary Donovan, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife Management Institute – for his wildlife management expertise, particularly for species that need early successional habitats.

• Bob Seymour, Professor of Forest Resources, University of Maine – for his silviculture expertise to improve long-term productivity, particularly for pine and spruce/fir.

• Andy Cutko, Ecologist/Licensed Forester, Maine Natural Areas Program and now with The Nature Conservancy – for his forest ecology expertise.

• Dave Publicover, Senior Staff Scientist and Assistant Director of Research, Appalachian Mountain Club – for his forest ecology expertise.

• Jensen Bissell, former Director, Baxter State Park – for his forest management expertise in the Acadian Forest.

• Dr. Daniel Harrison, Professor of Wildlife Ecology at the University of Maine in Orono, who contributed his thoughts on management for umbrella species.

• Craig Ten Broeck, environmental consultant – for his heroic assistance in researching various topics.

Thanks to all!


VIII. Defining Exemplary Forest ManagementA in the Acadian Forest

As stated earlier, these guidelines are for actively managed lands rather than ecological reserves, and are intended to be implemented in the context of the landscapes where NEFF’s lands occur. Thus, for example, one kind of habitat may be missing in a particular landscape and quite a different habitat in another landscape. Likewise, maintaining connectivity between habitats across the landscape is also important and will influence implementation on any given parcel. In addition to implementing these standards, NEFF intends to maintain dual third-party certification of its lands. With these understandings, Exemplary Forestry includes: 1. Implementing Best Management Practices to protect and improve forest conditions. Employing

accepted “Best Management Practices” to protect soils, riparian and aquatic habitat, special habitats, wildlife trees, etc. (see the section which follows on this topic).

2. Implementing advanced silviculture. Practicing forestry which results in: a. Continuously improving forest stands over time in terms of both quality and quantity. b. Conditions which are well suited to the umbrella wildlife species known to be representative

of the habitat needs of more than 75% of native species.B

Umbrella Wildlife Species Percent of Landscape Forest Stand Condition Described

American MartenC 16% Blocks of at least 640 acres that are at least 80% stocked at over 80 ft2 of basal area (approximately 16 cords/acre)

Canada Lynxc 27% Even aged blocks >15 acres in size which are regenerated to spruce and fir on a revolving schedule.D

c. A diverse size class distribution of 5-15% of stands in seedlings, 30-40% in saplings and poles, 40-50% sawtimber (DeGraaf, et al. 2005) (including 10% of the total area in large diameter multi-storied stands [see also Ten Broeck 2018]—note 9% of NEFF’s existing lands are, or will become, such stands over time).

d. Growing tree speciesE well-suited to each siteF, (e.g., matched to soil and physiographic conditions as well as expected changes in climatic conditions).

e. Stocking that fully occupies the sites; this is an average at least “B” line stocking for stands not currently being regenerated.G For example, in 8-10” diameter stands of mixed wood this would be approximately 20 cords/acre.

f. Growing and harvesting quality timber at an average of 0.5 cords/acre/year,H and targeting increasing the stocking of high-quality products.

3. Addressing climate change as the knowledge base becomes available, and increasing the resilience to, adaptation for, and mitigation of, climate change.I This includes but is not limited to using forests and forest products to sequester more carbon and substitute for steel and concrete, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

4. Diversifying management approaches. To the extent that site conditions and the landscape context allow, NEFF intends to manage significant portions of its properties using both the even- and uneven-aged management approaches described earlier.J

5. Aesthetics. Public support for forest management depends in part on how forests look. In this regard, NEFF intents to manage its lands to maximize aesthetic benefits particularly in key areas (e.g., attractive roadsides, trails and shorelines) and minimize adverse effects (e.g., careless looking harvests).K


Notes for Section VI above

A For actively managed properties or portions thereof, this is specifically not intended to obviate the need for strategically located ecological reserves and withhold portions of otherwise actively managed parcels from harvesting, e.g., steep slopes, wetlands, rare plant sites, legacy patches, etc.

B The US Fish & Wildlife Service, as well as state wildlife management agencies, can provide recommendations on the best species to select. These species too may change over time.

C Management suggestions from the work of Dr. Dan Harrison.

D Harvest blocks being regenerated are intended to include legacy trees and patches (see Bennett 2010, Tubbs, et al. 1987).

E Decisions of what tree species are “best suited” to each site can be guided by the recommendations contained in soil surveys prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service with site conditions verified by a qualified forester or soil scientist. The selection of species should also take into account the changes expected in climatic conditions and their impact on tree growth (Anderson and Palik 2011, USDA NRCS n.d.).

F This requires matching the silvicultural system to the site and may require controlling invasive species and/or excessive browsing (see Leak 2014, Leak, et al. 2014, Bennett 2010, Rawinski 2014).

G 20 cords/acre (see Leak et al. 2014). NEFF’s lands, mostly south of the Acadian Forest, average >30 cords per acre.

H This will not be possible on some properties when they are acquired, e.g., if they have been depleted, also over time the value of the timber should be enhanced (more and better quality sawlogs).

Overall, NEFF’s properties are currently estimated to grow approximately 2% per year, or 1.25 tons/acre/year (Chris Pryor, pers. comm., 03/26/18).

I USFS guidance on how to increase forest resilience and facilitate adaptation will be followed.

J Achieving the several objectives outlined here may in the future require management using the “triad” approach. That is, setting aside a modest portion of the property for passive or light-handed management, while dedicating another modest portion for intensive management to produce the desired volume of wood, and yet the majority to ecological forestry—forest management that mimics patterns of natural disturbances—with a specific objective of addressing the challenges presented by climate change. For more on this topic see Seymour, et al. (1992).

K USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape aesthetics: A handbook for scenery management. Agriculture Handbook No. 701. 104 p.


Best Management Practices

In addition to adhering to the standards of the Forest Stewardship Council and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, NEFF will employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) to:

a. Provide wildlife trees by retaining all snags if possible and at least 3-5 live but decaying trees > 18” in diameter per acre (Maine Audubon 2017). For marten habitat, maintaining more snags is reported to be desirable (Chapin, et al. 1998, Fuller and Harrison 2005, Payer & Harrison 2003, Simons 2009).

b. Protect soils, riparian and aquatic habitats, including maintaining upstream as well as downstream passage for aquatic life.6

c. Maintain soil productivity by, among other measures, retaining adequate amounts of slash onsite consistent with BMPs developed by the Forest Guild (Forest Guild Biomass Working Group 2010) and guidelines for the timing of operations and types of logging equipment to avoid soil composition and rutting.

d. Protect special habitats including habitats of species identified as having special needs7 not entirely met by the management outlined above and habitats which are critically important to more common species, including by way of example, deer wintering areas.

e. Control invasive exotics so they do not limit biodiversity or interfere with regeneration of trees, shrubs, and native ground plants.

f. Reduce animal damage by taking action to reduce over-browsing where it is a problem, e.g., leave patches of dense slash to protect regeneration, and support efforts to keep wildlife populations below destructive levels, e.g., special seasons to reduce excessive populations of some species.

g. Strictly limit damage to the residual stand.

6 Soils, riparian and aquatic resources to be managed consistent with management guidelines from the Natural Resource Conservation Service and other sources, e.g. 1) Maine Forest Service (2004) is the standard forestry BMP erosion and sediment water quality protection guide for road construction, skidding, and landings, and this document also includes recommendations for allowing fish passage. Does not include riparian habitat guidelines not associated with soils or aquatic habitats; 2) Bryan (2007), the Riparian and Wetland Forest guidelines on pages 30-31 include wildlife-focused riparian zone management recommendations and includes by reference to Maine BMPs to address water quality concerns; 3) Forest Guild Biomass Working Group (2010) addresses concerns related to soil depletion due to biomass harvesting and retention of woody material that provides habitat benefits; and 4) Abbot (2016). 7 As identified by state natural heritage and wildlife management agencies, as well as archaeological sites, heritage sites, unique geologic/hydrologic sites, and significant historic/cultural sites as identified by the State Historic Preservation office.


References

Abbot, A. 2016. Maine stream crossing survey manual. Falmouth: US Fish and Wildlife Service. (Pending recommendation from NRCS per Rob Bryan email to Ben Naumann 1/12/2017).

Anderson, P., and B. Palik. 2011. Silviculture for climate change. (October 2011) USDA Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/silviculture (accessed 06/18/18). Belair, E. P., and M. J. Ducey. 2018. Patterns in forest harvesting in New England and New York: Using FIA data to evaluate silvicultural outcomes. Journal of Forestry, 116(3):273-282.

Bennett, K. P. (ed). 2010. Good forestry in the Granite State: Recommended voluntary forest management practices for New Hampshire (2d ed). Durham, NH: Univ. of NH Coop. Ext. p. 119., http://extension.unh.edu/goodforestry/assets/docs/GoodForestry2010FINALreducedsizeSECURE.pdf (accessed 03/30/17)

Bryan, R. B. 2007. Focus species forestry: A guide to integrating timber and biodiversity management in Maine. Falmouth: Maine Audubon. 92 p. http://www.forestsynthesis.com/files/ FocusSpeciesForestryMaine.pdf (accessed 03/30/17).

Chapin, T.G., D.J., Harrison & D.D. Katnik. 1998. Influence of landscape pattern on habitat use by American marten in an industrial forest. Conservation Biology 12: 1327-1337

Committee on Renewable Resources for Industrial Materials — National Research Council. 1976. Wood for structural and architectural purposes. Wood and Fiber, 8(1):1-72

DeGraaf, R. M., M. Yamasaki, W. B. Leak, and A. M. Lester. 2005. Landowner's guide to wildlife habitat: Forest management for the New England region. Vermont: University of Vermont Press. 128 p.

DeGraaf, R., M. Yamasaki, W. Leak, and A. Lester. 2006. A technical guide to forest wildlife habitat management in New England. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Press. 305 p.

Forest Guild Biomass Working Group. 2010. Forest biomass retention and biomass guidelines for the northeast. Santa Fe: Forest Guild. 17 p. https://www.forestguild.org/publications/research/2010/FG_Biomass_Guidelines_NE.pdf (accessed 03/30/17).

Fuller, A.K. & D.J. Harrison. 2005. Influence of partial timber harvesting on American martens in north-central Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 710-722.

Giffen, R. A. 2018. A synopsis on timber yields, management costs, and financial returns from Exemplary Forestry management over the long term in the Acadian Forest. Draft paper in the author’s files available upon request.

Guangsheng, C., S. Pan, D. J. Hayes, and H. Tian. 2017. Spatial and temporal patterns of plantation forests in the United States since the 1930s: An annual and gridded data set for regional Earth system modeling. Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 9:545–556.

Janowiak, M. K., A. W. D'Amato, C. W. Swanston, L. Iverson, F. R. Thompson, III, W. D. Dijak, S. Matthews, M. P. Peters, A. Prasad, J. S. Fraser, L. A. Brandt, P. Butler-Leopold, S. D. Handler, P. D. Shannon, D. Burbank, J. Campbell, C. Cogbill, M. J. Duveneck, M. R. Emery, N. Fisichelli, J. Foster, J. Hushaw, L. Kenefic, A. Mahaffey, T. L. Morelli, N. J. Reo, P. G. Schaberg, K. R. Simmons, A. Weiskittel, S. Wilmot, D. Hollinger, E. Lane, L. Rustad, and P. H. Templer. 2018. New England and northern New York forest ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis: a report from the New England Climate Change Response Framework project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-173.

https://extension.unh.edu/goodforestry/assets/docs/GoodForestry2010FINALreducedsizeSECURE.pdf

https://extension.unh.edu/goodforestry/assets/docs/GoodForestry2010FINALreducedsizeSECURE.pdf

http://www.forestsynthesis.com/files/FocusSpeciesForestryMaine.pdf

http://www.forestsynthesis.com/files/FocusSpeciesForestryMaine.pdf


Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 234 p. https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/55635 (accessed 04/09/19).Kenefic, L. 2018. Long-term U.S. Forest Service research at the Penobscot Experimental Forest. June 18, 2018 field tour handout. Available from the author’s files.

Leak, W. B. 2014. Forestry field note: Effects of nuisance/invasive species on regeneration in New Hampshire. https://extension.unh.edu/blog/effects-nuisanceinvasive-species-regeneration-new-hampshire (accessed 03/30/17)

Leak, W. B., M. Yamasaki, and R. Holleran,.2014. Silvicultural guide for northern hardwoods in the northeast. Newtown Square, PA: US Forest Service. p. 31. http://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs132.pdf (accessed 03/30/17).

Lorimer, C. G., and A. S. White. 2003. Scale and frequency of natural disturbances in the northeastern US: implications for early successional forest habitats and regional age distributions. Forest Ecology and Management, 185:41-64.

Maass, D. I., L. C. Irland, B. E. Roth, and K. M. Laustsen. 2016. Maine exotic larch plantations exceed expectations. Poster prepared for the 2016 New England Society of American Foresters meeting. https://larchresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/LarchPoster_NESAF-2016_Final.pdf (accessed 03/14/18).

Maine Audubon. 2017. Forestry for Maine birds: A guidebook for foresters managing woodlots “with birds in mind”. http://www.maineaudubon.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FFMB-2017-1.pdf (accessed 01/29/18).

Maine Forest Service. 2004. Best management practices for forestry: Protecting Maine’s water quality.

Maine’s Forest Products Council. 2016. Maine’s forest economy. Augusta. 32 p. http://maineforest.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Maines-Forest-Economy-10-12-2016.pdf (accessed 01/29/18).

Matthews, R., N. Mortimer, E. Mackie, C. Hatto, A. Evans, O. Mwabonje, T. Randle, W. Rolls, M. Sayce, and I. Tubby. 2014. Carbon impacts of using biomass in bioenergy and other sectors: forests. DECC project TRN 242/08/2011 Final report: Parts a and b.

McCollough, M. 2007 (draft). Canada lynx habitat management guidelines for Maine. Old Town, ME: US Fish & Wildlife Service, Maine Field Office. 44 pp

Oliver, C. D., N. T. Nassar, B.R. Lippke, and J. B. McCarter. 2014. Carbon, fossil fuel, and biodiversity mitigation with wood and forests. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 33(3):248-275.

Ontl, T.A., Swanston, C.W., Janowiak, M.K., Daley, J. A practitioner’s menu of adaptation strategies and approaches for forest carbon management. Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science White Paper, in review.

Payer, D.C. & D.J. Harrison. 2003. Influence of forest structure on habitat use by American marten in an industrial forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 179: 145-156

Payn, T., J. Carnus, P. Freer-Smith, M. Kimberley, W. Kollert, S. Liu, C. Orazio, L. Rodriguez, L. Neves Silva, M. J. Wingfield. 2015. Changes in planted forests and future global implications. Forest Ecology and Management, 352: 57-67.

Pounch, M. A., and R. A. Giffen. 2018. Landscape scale habitat needs in the Mountains of the Dawn. Draft paper in the author’s files available upon request.


Rawinski, T. J. 2014. White-tailed deer in northeastern forests: Understanding and assessing impacts. Newtown Square, PA: US Forest Service. p. 9. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/2014/NA-IN-02-14_WhitetailedDeerNEForestsWEB.pdf (accessed 03/30/17).

Rudnicky, T. C., and M. L. Hunter. 1993. Reversing the fragmentation perspective: Effects of clearcut size on bird species richness in Maine. Ecological Applications 3:357-366.

Sedjo, R. A., and D. Botkin. 1997. Using forest plantations to spare natural forests. Environment, 39(10):15-20, 30.

Sedjo, R. A. 2001. The role of forest plantations in the world’s future timber supply. The Forestry Chronicle, 77(2).

Seymour, R., and J. Leahy. 2016. Wicopy Woods Tree Farm: A rare 50-year record of forest productivity and stewardship. Poster prepared for 2016 New England Society of American Foresters meeting.

Seymour, R. S., A. S. White, and P. G. deMaynadier. 2002. Natural disturbance regimes in northeastern North America – Evaluating silvicultural systems using natural scales and frequencies. Forest Ecology and Management, 155:357-367.

Seymour, R. S., and M. L. Hunter. 1992. New forestry in eastern spruce-fir forests. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Miscellaneous Publication 716. 36 p.

Shuman, J. K., H. H. Shugart, and T. L. O’Halloran. 2011. Sensitivity of Siberian larch forests to climate change. Global Change Biology, 17(7):2370-2384.

Simons, E. 2009. Influences of past and future forest management on the spatiotemporal dynamics of habitat supply for Canada lynx and American martens in northern Maine. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, USA.

Swanston, Chris; Janowiak, Maria, eds. 2016. Forest Adaptation Resources: Climate change tools and approaches for land managers, 2nd Edition. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-87-2. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.161 p. (see also supplemental “Menu of Adaptation Strategies and Approaches: Developed for forest carbon management at https://forestadaptation.org/sites/default/files/Carbon%20Adaptation% 20and%20Mitigation%20Menu_draft1pg_%20NIACS%20Climate%20Change%20Response%20Framework.pdf)

Ten Broeck, C. 2018. The importance of late-successional and old-growth forests. TBO

Tubbs, C. H., R. M. DeGraaf, M. Yamasaki, W. M. Healy. 1987. Guide to wildlife tree management in New England northern hardwoods. Broomall, PA: US Forest Service, NE For. Exp. Sta., GTR NE-118. 30 p.

UN Food and Agriculture Organization. 2005. Global forest resources assessment. Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2005/en/ (accessed 07/26/17).

USDA Forest Service. 2011. National report on sustainable forests – 2010. FS-979Washington, DC.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. n.d. National agricultural land evaluation and site assessment (LESA) handbook. DRAFT. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052600.pdf (accessed 06/18/18). 95 p.


Washington Forest Protection Association. n.d. The forest industry is a part of the climate change solution. http://www.wfpa.org/our-forest-today/climate-change/ (accessed 01/29/18).

Whitman, A. A., and J. M. Hagan. 2009. A revised rapid-assessment late-successional index for common northeastern forest types. Forest Mosaic Science Notes 2009-1. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Brunswick, ME. 4 p.

EXEMPLARY FORESTRY IN THE ACADIAN FOREST · 2019-12-31 · Exemplary Forestry for the 21st Century...

Documents

Transcript of EXEMPLARY FORESTRY IN THE ACADIAN FOREST · 2019-12-31 · Exemplary Forestry for the 21st Century...